TaraMaiden Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 There's graffiti going up all over the place round here... "Men are the new women....." And I first heard it spoken by Alvin (Alan Rosenberg) to Nick Fallin (Simon Baker) in "The Guardian"...(2007) it's been coming for a while.... Allegedly.....
Sam Spade Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I would have trouble (i.e. no desire) to relate to a woman who spends her free time like this. There is nothing wrong with it per se, I just don't think it's possible to reconsile with a standard monogamous relationship. "I'll go recreationally **** strangers until my mid-30s, and then when I meet Mr. Right, I'll turn all of that off.", the heroine basically says. Right . But, times a'changin, so I'll probably be in the minority soon , plus we all know that the white picket fense standard of relationship is no longer the only one, and soon probably not even the dominant one.
neowulf Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I would have trouble (i.e. no desire) to relate to a woman who spends her free time like this. There is nothing wrong with it per se, I just don't think it's possible to reconsile with a standard monogamous relationship. "I'll go recreationally **** strangers until my mid-30s, and then when I meet Mr. Right, I'll turn all of that off.", the heroine basically says. Right . But, times a'changin, so I'll probably be in the minority soon , plus we all know that the white picket fense standard of relationship is no longer the only one, and soon probably not even the dominant one. Yeah, I think I'm with you on this one Sam... I tend to fall of the side of "Sex as an emotional expression" rather than "Sex as a recreational activity". The kind of sex in that article just seems all so... empty. *shrug*. Each to their own I guess.
Stockalone Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 The woman in the story seems to be of the opinion that people who don't share her views are only trying to keep her from living her life and are unevolved men who want to oppress female sexuality. It almost seems like she expects to be applauded for her choices, which I think is strange. But it makes sense if she thinks of herself as pioneer of a new, liberated and progressive age. I find that kind of thinking very strange, but even though I don't agree with her and her lifestyle, I have no intention of telling her what she can or can't do. If other people think like her, but feel oppressed and that is why they don't do what they would like to do, then I can't help them. They aren't sexually oppressed, they are simply cowards. As long as people like the woman in the story are honest with their future SO's, I don't care. That gives their partners the chance to decide if they can accept them or not. What I can't stand are those who don't think that such things are any of their SO's business when we are talking about entering a monogamous relationship. Especially if it involves marriage and kids. That being said, I do agree with Sam in that society could be moving in that direction. But I think it is not a matter of evolving, society rather oscillates over time between more conservative and more liberal points of view when it comes to sex.
Stark Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 I really want to know what Mr. Right is going to think when she tells him that she used to go to mansions to screw strange guys and participate in threesomes and foursomes and multiple partners on a weekly basis. Going by what she said she has no reason to cover it up right, I mean apparantly she's nothing to be ashamed of, I'm sure it will take about mid-sentence before Mr. Right runs off. How it is considered that its more socially evolved to behave like dogs locked in a room together, thats backwards thinking. What happened to self control and self respect and a bit of class.
tigressA Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 I just wonder how men and women would view this if the article profiled men instead of women in that organization... Why does it seem so much harder for a man to accept a "sexually liberated/aggressive" woman than for a woman to accept a man who could be described that way? I see a bunch of threads on here posted by guys who are "wary of" and "can't accept" their girlfriend's sexual pasts. I have yet to see a thread posted by a woman who can't accept her boyfriend's sexual past. Why is it made to sound like there's a lack of self-respect, a lack of class when a woman has a sexual history like the one described in the article; why aren't men who sleep around seen more as lacking those qualities? Not intending to be confrontational; I'm just very curious.
Stockalone Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 ...why aren't men who sleep around seen more as lacking those qualities? Not intending to be confrontational; I'm just very curious. Maybe women like their men promiscuous. But I also think there were threads (at least I definitely remember one, there are probably more) where women had problems with their partner's past. I do think that men who sleep around have qualities (or rather flaws from my POV) that I wouldn't tolerate in a partner. However, because I have no sexual interest in men, it is basically irrelevant whether they sleep around or not. That is not my problem, it's the problem of the women who they have relationships with. I have an acquaintance/friend who I call a manwhore because of his promiscuity. He calls me a prude because I don't have casual sex. As long as he keeps his dirty fingers off my sister, I don't care. As far as women are concerned, I do care about their sexual history and judge them as it is vital in my opinion to be on the same page on this matter. I need someone who shares my core values. And they also deserve someone who respects them for who they are.
tigressA Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Maybe women like their men promiscuous. But I also think there were threads (at least I definitely remember one, there are probably more) where women had problems with their partner's past. I do think that men who sleep around have qualities (or rather flaws from my POV) that I wouldn't tolerate in a partner. However, because I have no sexual interest in men, it is basically irrelevant whether they sleep around or not. That is not my problem, it's the problem of the women who they have relationships with. I have an acquaintance/friend who I call a manwhore because of his promiscuity. He calls me a prude because I don't have casual sex. As long as he keeps his dirty fingers off my sister, I don't care. As far as women are concerned, I do care about their sexual history and judge them as it is vital in my opinion to be on the same page on this matter. I need someone who shares my core values. And they also deserve someone who respects them for who they are. I understand about being on the same page...but I just wonder if there isn't more behind it because as I said, it seems like men--and for that matter, women too--tend to share the opinion that promiscuous women are much more likely to be termed undesirable partners than promiscuous men because of their promiscuity, and more, that it is okay to deem them as such while letting men "off the hook", so to speak.
Stark Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 I understand about being on the same page...but I just wonder if there isn't more behind it because as I said, it seems like men--and for that matter, women too--tend to share the opinion that promiscuous women are much more likely to be termed undesirable partners than promiscuous men because of their promiscuity, and more, that it is okay to deem them as such while letting men "off the hook", so to speak. Mainly due to the fact that woman are the ones that decide wether to have sex or not. Men usually do the chasing, but a woman is ultimately the one that decides. Even in the link given, the woman decides on the men there. Both are as bad as each other in the end, but there is a slight bias against woman for the simple reason they are the ones that ultimately decide, not the guy, so whereas a man whos sexually active got many woman to sleep with him - the woman on the other hand made that decision herself, which creates a slight bias.
Author sxyNYCcpl Posted July 7, 2009 Author Posted July 7, 2009 Both are as bad as each other in the end, but there is a slight bias against woman for the simple reason they are the ones that ultimately decide, not the guy, so whereas a man whos sexually active got many woman to sleep with him - the woman on the other hand made that decision herself, which creates a slight bias. Doesn't that imply that a woman enjoying sex is a bad thing?
Jersey Shortie Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Same stuff, different generation. This time it's just got a catchy cute name. These women aren't nearly as progressive as being suggested. Call me pessimestic but I think we have a long ime to go before we really ever reach true sexual revolution or equality.
Stark Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Doesn't that imply that a woman enjoying sex is a bad thing? Not at all, you can have a very high sex drive and enjoy sex without sleeping around despite what most people believe. There are two ways to look at it. Sex for the sheer fact of sex, getting yourself off with someone else that you are attracted to. What I like to call, glorified masturbation. Then there's the sex that has that, but is also about being intimate with your partner as a way of expression. Guys/girls who are just after sex will not care about the number really as they are just after the same thing. Guys/girls who are in it for the possible hope of long term will be turned off and lose a little respect with their partner who have high numbers because it means they don't value sex the same way. There is no way you can reach high numbers if you're having sex intimately, it's just impossible. That's why I find this article funny, she's going to have a hard time finding Mr. Right when he finds out the way she went around banging strange guys in a mansion on a weekly basis.
Author sxyNYCcpl Posted July 7, 2009 Author Posted July 7, 2009 Sex for the sheer fact of sex, getting yourself off with someone else that you are attracted to. What I like to call, glorified masturbation. Then there's the sex that has that, but is also about being intimate with your partner as a way of expression. Why do you consider the latter good, yet the former is bad? That's why I find this article funny, she's going to have a hard time finding Mr. Right when he finds out the way she went around banging strange guys in a mansion on a weekly basis. And what if she finds Mr. Right AT the mansion doing the same things she's doing?
Stark Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Why do you consider the latter good, yet the former is bad? Why would I consider sleeping around as good? Why would anyone? And what if she finds Mr. Right AT the mansion doing the same things she's doing? lol
sally4sara Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 It is weird to think about men reading the same article only with the focus on a man instead of a woman participating in these sort of sexual activities. What would men do? Well we already have "Dear Penthouse," Some men would admire the guy. Some would be jealous. Some would remember fondly of their wild days (never once did they think those days would prevent them from settling down ). Others would think less of him. Some might consider him trashy. For sure there would be some guys who find it okay as long as the story is about a man doing these things, but a woman doing the same is worthless, untrustworthy, unable to ever commit. But does it give hope to anyone for more people to just screw and screw and screw with abandon? What a life to aspire to huh? Think she (or a he) will find an end to starvation or get a Nobel Peace Prize?
Author sxyNYCcpl Posted July 7, 2009 Author Posted July 7, 2009 Why would I consider sleeping around as good? Why would anyone? Why would you consider it as bad?
Stark Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Why would you consider it as bad? The default conclusion is that sleeping around is bad. I don't need to prove it's bad, if someone can give me information as to why it's good I'll listen, analyze and decide, but automatically it's bad. That's why you get threads about people having so many partners and not about not having not so many partners.
Author sxyNYCcpl Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 The default conclusion is that sleeping around is bad. I don't need to prove it's bad, if someone can give me information as to why it's good I'll listen, analyze and decide, but automatically it's bad. I hate to sound like a petulant child, but why? I take the opposite position, that unless it can be shown to be bad (and not just talking about sleeping around, but anything) then it must be good, or at least neutral. Since sex is pleasurable, and variety is a good thing (generally speaking), it seems to me a variety in sexual experiences would also be a good thing. Now, I fully acknowledge that society, as it were, tends to agree with you. That's what I am trying to analyze.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Some men would admire the guy. Some would be jealous. Some would remember fondly of their wild days (never once did they think those days would prevent them from settling down ). Others would think less of him. Some might consider him trashy. For sure there would be some guys who find it okay as long as the story is about a man doing these things, but a woman doing the same is worthless, untrustworthy, unable to ever commit. If a guy did that, I would say he is just an insecure douche, but otherwise I would not care too much. If a woman does it.... she is gross and I would never want to date her! Is that a double standard? I don't think so... because I only date women. Make sense? I read the first part of this article... these women are disgusting. I would never want to get involved with any of them.
Stark Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I hate to sound like a petulant child, but why? I take the opposite position, that unless it can be shown to be bad (and not just talking about sleeping around, but anything) then it must be good, or at least neutral. Since sex is pleasurable, and variety is a good thing (generally speaking), it seems to me a variety in sexual experiences would also be a good thing. Well, the risk for STDs goes up, as does pregnancy. Two things that don't agree with that. You can take precautions but it wont immunize you. Lets disregard these though. Sex has multiple meanings for some. But the 3 most common are reproduction, pleasure, intimacy. When finding someone to be with, sex is supposed to be something you do give to someone you like, as a way of expression. That's why you don't see people getting other people off at work or in public because it's an intimate thing thats supposed to be reserved for people you like/love. When a woman, or man, removes the intimate part of it, and starts behaving like a primitive animal, just going around screwing because it feels good, they show they have no self control, and they people will lose respect for the people who sleep around, and because the intimacy part is out of the way you're not going to value sex as much with said person because they lost that value ages ago. I wish I could explain myself better, there is more, but yet I find I'm unable to grasp the words.
carhill Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 What I'm trying to figure out is why the bull next door keeps trying to mount the horse Topically, past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. In either gender, when sexual style becomes ingrained over a long period of time, it becomes the default. One merely needs to decide whether that default is compatible or not. Expecting change is likely to be a pursuit of self-flagellation. OK, back to watching the corn grow....
Author sxyNYCcpl Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 Lets disregard these though. Agreed. There are only 2 incurable STD's, one of which is common and in 80% of victims causes not even a single symptom. The other is potentially fatal, which is (very) bad, but is extremely rare and outside of unprotected anal sex, is difficult to spread. Pregnancy, with condoms and pills is what, 99.99% prevented? When a woman, or man, removes the intimate part of it, and starts behaving like a primitive animal, just going around screwing because it feels good, they show they have no self control, and they people will lose respect for the people who sleep around, and because the intimacy part is out of the way you're not going to value sex as much with said person because they lost that value ages ago. But again, showing self-control implies that sexual activity absent intimacy is a bad thing. For the record, my wife and I are swingers, and routinely have sex with people whose names we don't even know. It's enjoyable for us, it's enjoyable for them, and when the night is over we all go back to our lives. I am not trying to convince you that you should be like us, if that's not your scene that's totally cool, I'm genuinely trying to understand why you find sex without intimacy as a bad thing.
Stark Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 But again, showing self-control implies that sexual activity absent intimacy is a bad thing. For the record, my wife and I are swingers, and routinely have sex with people whose names we don't even know. It's enjoyable for us, it's enjoyable for them, and when the night is over we all go back to our lives. I am not trying to convince you that you should be like us, if that's not your scene that's totally cool, I'm genuinely trying to understand why you find sex without intimacy as a bad thing. Well more power to you to have that lifestyle if both of you agree on it, but remember it is in the minority, and that the majority of people (although that may be changing with this generation) do need intimacy to enjoy sex, and when one looks at someones past and notices a high level of partners, they'll realize that the person does not feel the same way about sex, and it's going to be a major turn off. But for me I cannot enjoy sex unless there is some intimacy involved. I have tried it and I just find it to be glorified masturbation and it really hits home when I done it that somethings missing. They may be good in bed, attractive, but when you don't see the cute smile on their face after it, have them cuddling into you after it and a ton of other things it just feels like empty sex and just completely unsatisfying. For me sex is not about the sex itself, it's about knowing that I've pleased my partner and see the rewards of that through her expression. Again, I lack for words to explain.
Recommended Posts